Inkbunny

No, but it is obviously a state of affairs that can happen if there are not sufficient laws to protect speech and to prosecute lying about people. Or at least having a press standards authority that actually does its job. The current state of affairs in the UK is not something that has existed for as long as it has been a democracy, so connecting it with democracy itself is a non-sequitur.

Ameinias

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Well, that raises several questions. One of which is: is the problem possible to solve using laws? And if so, what laws are needed? As you point out, democracy wasn’t always such a horrible way of running a society, so what went wrong?

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Democracies are built on laws, so yes, laws are needed. Guarantees of free speech without government/police molestation like the USA has would be one such essential feature. The alternative to democratic government systems are dictatorial ones. Regimes that own journalism, use it as preemptive public justification propaganda for their pending intentions and send thugs in uniform to enact said intentions. The laws of a country directly affect the culture within a country and the culture also has an effect on future law. It's true that laws alone will not solve the problem, because culture must also value free speech. This is not a stain against democracy, however, so I reject your framing of the issue along those lines.

Ameinias

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The way I see it the problem is actually worse in the US than in Europe. And insomuch as there are problems in Europe, we've imported them from the US. College students harassing professors, a politically correct media that decides what can and can't be said out loud, second-third wave feminism, racism-from-the-left, technology companies pushing an agenda... doesn't most of that come from the US, and aren't those things an even bigger problem there than here? Having a strong protection of freedom of speech and almost only privately owned media doesn't seem to have helped much, have it? Sure, maybe you don't have to go prison for hate speech, but that's hardly reassuring.

Now, nothing of that is incompatible with what you said, of course. :)

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

It is worse in the UK than the USA. People here are jailed over tweets.

Ameinias

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Yea that's crazy. Imported american 'philosophy'... but without American laws protecting speech. Worst of both worlds.

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

We do have a society that try to avoid the majority of us from being offended.

Though I think you should look into the notion of wedge issues

Being offended is human nature... we should give other people the benefit to be human and not assume they're being human for ulterior motives.  If you take away all the context and lean into motives and generalization, then you're not longer thinking them as human.

Though funny thing... isn't hate speech at its core showing an offense without any consideration to those its about?  If i'm correct, you were trying to say labeling a particular speech as hate speech has a controlling factor ...  but the actual notion of hate speech is a way to dismiss a person humanity in regards to their sex, nationality, etc etc.

You would have done better to show the parallel of hate speech to the hatred of bigotry.. and that it generally comes from the same place.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Hate speech is a term used to dismiss a person, to label them as hateful to dissuade others from listening to them. So it is most often applied to people who are explicitly NOT dehumanising others. Rather, it is a label to denote ideas the person using the term does not want to engage with or openly talk to; it is far easier for them to define their opponent as a personification of hatred. Hatred of bigotry also doesn't apply here, because the people using the term "hate speech" to dismiss or discredit their opponents are themselves bigots.

Being offended by something isn't invalid, but it also isn't a problem. It does nothing, harms nobody, to be offended. This is about defining a position or statement as offensive, not simply saying "I personally found that offensive", but to say, as the media and activists constantly do, that it is offensive as though that represents the only true perspective. That "offensive" status is used to justify shutting down any discussion about the subject that doesn't involve smothering it with ire. That's where the power play comes in.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Incidentally, it is very bad form of you to equate people expressing the fact that they found something offensive with the culture of ruining careers, fucking over institutions and censorship based on the wishes of those who are the loudest at proclaiming they are offended. This is something that is having dire consequences in free expression, public discussion and essentially all areas of artistic endeavour. It is not simply people "being human" in expressing their distaste for things. It is their WILL to see destruction based on the fact they found something offensive, not that they were pissed off in the first place. That is profound wickedness.

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I think you got triggered and you lost your mind. I'll make my point very short... in fact i'll just repeat my point.

a) look into "wedge issues".. you were going towards that anyway
b) give people the benefit of the doubt
c) Bigotry against bigot is bad.. you had a point, sadly you're not clever enough to make the landing.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

You've ignored my entire point. Nice.

a) This is about a general principle, not a wedge issue. It is basic common sense.
b) I do not give benefit of the doubt to the practice of censoring and destroying peoples reputations based on assertions that something is offensive in itself. Being offended is subjective, but is treated by the media and activists as something objective. Simple. This is incorrect.
c) Hating people for their opinions is bigotry. Labelling someone as a bigot because you hate their opinions is not bigotry against bigots. It is just bigotry.

Got any more ad homs about how triggered I am?

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

I think you basically ignored my entire message.. Okay.. you are right.

PS.. I agree, bigotry is wrong.. even if the person is a bigot or not.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Nope. You have come to me, responding to my cartoon with something that has nothing to do with it. You have refused to engage with the point being made but felt the need to throw something at me anyway. And you say I'm the one who is triggered and have lost my mind?

Your message was that I should look up "wedge issues", which are divisive subjects in politics that can sway people away from one party or another. Why bring that up? Do you see this basic principle that being offended is subjective and shouldn't be monopolised and used to shut others down as a divisive political issue? For anyone with any sanity, it isn't one.

The other part of your message was that people aren't inhuman for being offended, which I agreed with and never stated otherwise. When I responded to your message you pretended I had ignored it, after having ignored the whole point of this cartoon. You're the one who is triggered and you can't argue against what I've said, so your only options are to either ignore me, misrepresent me or try to guide the conversation into being something else. You're laughable.

Ameinias

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I think the thing here might be that Mole has a much more narrow view of hate speech than you (and most people) do.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I look at how the term is applied in real life, to real people. It doesn't involve in engaging with anything anyone has specifically said, it's always just a loose label thrown at anyone who isn't ideologically on the same side as the person using the term in the first place.

Ameinias

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Yup, but if Mole is thinking about something that's more like a group of nazis trying to start a pogrom in the middle of the city, rather than a soft-spoken professor stating what conclusions can be drawn from his research, that might explain things. Different kinds of hate speech. :)

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

It's about speech. Hate "speech". Not a pogrom, lol. But when a mass of communists in black, masked up, start trashing shit and being violent? Nothing about hatred shows up in the media does it. Funny that. The cartoon refers to media and activists rather than individual people expressing their view about whether something is offensive or hateful, so it is about pushing an overall narrative that X person or X idea is morally wrong because it is "offensive" or "hate speech". Who defines what is offensive or worthy of being designated as hate speech? Yeah, the fucking media and activist groups. They take the power from individual people to make up their own minds by attempting to define for people how they should feel about a thing without even hearing it for themselves.

If there are a bunch of nazis saying nazi things in the street, engage with what they're saying, demonstrate that they are wrong. It isn't hard to argue against a nazi. But this hate speech offense culture crap isn't applied to nazi extremists, it's used to define non-nazis as nazis. It's a social tool to put people into a box they have never fit into, so their voices aren't heard and their arguments are never engaged with. Only people who know they are themselves wrong have the desire to never have an open argument with their detractors. It is a form of intellectual cowardice and malice.

And that's exactly why Mole didn't engage with the cartoons actual point, because he's on the side of this censorious culture and can't argue in favour of it.

Ameinias

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I think the main problem here is that you're trying to sell reason, honesty and truth. Do you think feminists, diversity activists, the media or other leftists are interested in that? More importantly though, why do you think such trash is allowed to have this much power over 'cultural issues'?

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I don't think they're interested, no XP. I put these toons up not to convince people, because they won't, but for the pleasure of people who aren't on the far left. I think the far left have so much power at the moment because they demanded it and the weak people running cultural institutions just gave it up without resistance. Didn't want conflict, so just acquiesced to whatever was demanded. Websites, convention staff, artists scared about their bottom line, they're the ones in our fandom in particular who have allowed this shite to spread. I don't think anybody should forget that either.

Ameinias

5 years, 9 months ago

link

In addition, I think people from the economical upper class find it quite convenient to have 'progressives' fight for 'representation' and things like that, rather than have them demand more economical equality between classes.

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I'm going to try one last time.

a) The reason why I brought up wedge issue is... because your bloody principle is basically about how people react to wedge issues.  It just flew over your head on how they relate to each other.... actually hate speech vs freedom of speech is itself a wedge issue.  I believe if you bother to do more research into that one thing.. you might learn something and have an improve understanding of what you're to talk about.      At no point have i said you were wrong... I only believe your point is shallow.

b) Bigotry at its core is refusing to give people the benefit of the doubt.  You keep to your own opinion and refuse to open up and consider other thoughts..I was telling you to consider giving the people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt... much like they should before they start claiming hate speech.  The way you talk about Media/Activities show you have some prejudice

I was only trying to advise you to reconsider that maybe these things are more complex and you can't just generalize those people. But it seems to me you want to talk about why people label hate speech.. without talking about what really counts as hate speech.   But I also look at this with the knowledge when racism and prejudice were enforced using political correctness.. and it was offensive not to treat a race as below another.

c) Finally.. I feel you had a chance to make a very good point.. but your point was corrupted with your own prejudices and bias.  Maybe when those media people talk about how they're offended... that they really are just offended and are going about it in a very primitive and misguided manner.

I say this because... how are you any different?  Isn't this cartoon to show how you're offended of those media/activities without considering their prospective?   It is just a broad stroke to pain them and take away their humanity.. much like how they would do if they label you as a bigot.

You seem more concern in saying the people we might be talking about aren't really bigots.. than my point that the people being bigot against those who they claim as bigots is wrong.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

A) You're acting like saying something is a "wedge issue" is meaningful here. It makes no difference whatsoever to what is being said. Divisive issues are issues that are important to people, that's why opinions on it are so strong. This cartoon argues for a principle that is to be universally applied, not specific to one party or another, one ideology or another. It is wrong to use the concepts of hate speech and offense as objective criteria to mark people as unworthy of consideration. The media does it incessantly, as in never stops. Activists from all over the political spectrum do it to. Don't go near that guy, he's abcdefg, a total piece of shit. Wedge issue? Who cares. This cartoon is meant to be simple, as the title implies. Cartoons on politics are shallow by necessity, because they are condensed and simplified points. A cartoon is not an essay and it never could be. I don't believe for a second you're here to give me some honest advice because of your track record of responses to me, so stop lying.

B) You can observe, every day, in any fucking mainstream news outlet, precisely what this refers to. It isn't me refusing to give people the benefit of the doubt, it's the media and activists refusing to give their opponents the benefit of the doubt. They don't want to listen to them, so they define them as evil. I've had the exact same shit happen to me when I've made cartoons in the past that questioned far left doctrine. I've seen people make journals about me and how I should be avoided because I'm transphobic, I've seen people even harass my customers because they had the temerity to buy a fucking commission from me. You ignore what is happening for everyone to see and tell me I'm the one not giving people the benefit of the doubt? Bull. Shit. This isn't an opinion, it's something people are DOING to others.There is nothing complex about the principle in the cartoon, you either follow it or you don't. The rest is how people justify their decision, or try to. It IS simple.

C) This cartoon isn't about people being bad for finding something offensive, which I've already told you twice. It isn't hypocritical if I find these people offensive because I don't have a problem with anyone finding anything offensive. I have a problem with people who monopolise their perspective of finding something offensive to pretend that everyone does and only the offended people should have an impact on how the target is treated. When a show gets cancelled, for example, because 200 people complain about it, it grants power to 200 despite the show having millions of viewers. What of their perspectives? Nope, only the offended count. Can you grasp this or can you not? Fuck.

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

a) "I don't believe for a second you're here to give me some honest advice because of your track record of responses to me, so stop lying"  You could consider you might be wrong and examine what I told you and find out where you might have misunderstood.

b) When they do it to you it's wrong, but you're not right doing the same thing.  You're universal principle is basically the same thing.  When they do it to you, you're a bigot.. when you do it to them, they're hypocrites.  Your principles is just a way to make a judgement based on small elements and trends..... a _pre_ judgement on how to look at their motives..... also known as Prejudice.

You don't think they had some simple principle that allow them to make judgement on you?  Obviously some of them are wrong.. and your answer is "let's try to guess what's in their mind and say what they're really saying"  Much like how you declare I'm a liar.. and how you're making general rules on media/activities

c) If you take the concept and go in a new direction.. "When Roarey Raccoon makes a cartoon, what he's actually saying is that only his perspective is worth caring about..."   You already know what you find unfair with how people treat you.. learn from it and try to be better yourself.

But I think I see the confusion... When I said

"	If you take away all the context and lean into motives and generalization, then you're [no] longer thinking them as human.

I was saying that's what they do when they bring up the offense and that's what you're doing with your bloody simple principle.

kat37

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Gonna have to say you make a reasonable argument but seems they're intent on just ignoring you. Its pretty obvious that there are still bigots out there screaming the N word to black, foaming to hang gays, and telling women to get back in the kitchen. One need only look at the 12 red states trying to ban porn entirely and to jail women for a miscarriage to prove that correct.

Overall the majority of us as furries have received hate speech yet we have often fought for the protection of all Speech. However there is a recent movement not to protect speech but to insincerely push views to move the overturn window to change the political discourse. The most common is of course the college campuses which is nothing more than insincere since they were private institutions and the people demanding to speak there were also demanding pay and a captive audience. Being allowed to have free speech does not require A) you to have access to the highest platform or B) for us to pretend your views are popular when they are clearly not. Many groups on the left fought for info wars and Rush limbaugh to keep their radio shows as many on the right did everything to silence the left

We here are a community where the majority of us hold mostly Progressive views. We on average hold such views because the majority of us have a horror story of being persecuted by conservatives for our sexual dispositions. If you happen to see someone suggesting the conservatives have changed their ways, denying that they ever persecuted, or giving false equivocation for other political groups, I have absolute certainty that the majority of us Know well enough that they're either liars or at best ignorant at such a massive scale it would be negligent to not call it stupid

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Let's be fair to this person, he doesn't live in the states.  He's in the UK and what he know and experience is a little different.

I do think he's is sincere -- but he's delusional.  Have you ever had a moment where you are responding to someone and you find yourself responding more to what you believe they meant than what was actually said.  I think he's in that head space and reacting more than he's listening.  That's how he took a very mundane response and made it mean more than what was being said.  He's ready to be attacked and ready for a fight, causing fights and attacks where they don't exist.

He can get to the truth, but he's not willing to.  I don't think he honestly know how he's being hypocritical and embodying everything he says he hate.  He's not going to be exactly like what he hate, but it's in the same general direction.

I do think what is sadder is.. He's so focused on how people who side against hate speech and dismiss the side they claim he's on, that he ignores that he want those people to give him the benefit of the doubt and not to be carelessly judgmental to him.. and slowly building up generalization and principles to label them.

He's more focus on telling people what he think than really bothering to engage with ideas.  Which is why his first response to me was to declare what hate speech _really_ was.. by ignoring its real definition and redefining it as a label.  If he was willing to listen to me, he would have understood I got where he was going.  It didn't have to turn into a one sided argument where I'm only clarifying what I'm saying while he accuse me... but he can't help himself.

kat37

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Oh so would you say he fits something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Funny enough I follow Innuendo Studios. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not a Jack.... but after watching it again.... yeah.

kat37

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Yeah I think suggesting he is an angry jack and not a 4chan is the benefit of the doubt

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

For a pretentious masturbator over your own supposedly superior intellectual ability, it's quite amazing that you can have typed so much on this submission without once addressing what it's actually about. There isn't a single occasion you've approached me and not ended up trying to manipulate the conversation into being something different because the argument you object to which compels you to reply to my cartoon in the first place is also something you have no argument for.

If you took your head out of your ass long enough to stop thinking you're an anointed wise man on a pedestal, you might come close to actually staying on topic, being charitable in the way you expect others to be, and making a point that is actually worth reading.

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Maybe you should literally take your own advice. I think you're just projecting because your cartoon is a way for you to display your supposed superior intellect where you either try to lecture people or confirm your own biases.

Initially I gave you 2 thoughts and two suggestions.. Somehow that turn into a big debate, even though initially I agree with your point. I only felt you could make a 'better' point.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Haha no. You have replied to this cartoon because you disagree with its central premise, but you have done everything other than mount an argument against it. You've claimed I'm dehumanising people, that I'm claiming to be able to read their minds. You brought up wedge issues and it has nothing to do with this whatsoever. You've claimed I'm hypocritical for having a go at people for feeling offended, despite that not being the point. I've repudiated you on every point you've made, which you have ignored, and proceeded to have a wank with that other random guy. You approached me with the air of being my intellectual superior and couched all of this ignorant tripe in the guise of you being just someone wanting to offer some helpful advice.

You are dishonest, pretentious and evasive. Having typed all that crap above, still not even attempting to discuss the actual point of the cartoon, leads me to conclude thar you disagree with its premise while lacking the ability or desire to repudiate it. That is as stupid and stupid gets. I haven't come to you to give you advice, you have come here to lecture me and used every uncharitable angle you can to discredit me while not making a salient point. Just like the last cartoon you replied to, you find an angle of arguing with me that ignores the point actually being made. You're hilarious.

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Well, I never said I disagree with your premise. And I'm saying right now I agree with it... it's kind of funny you can't find a functioning argument against your premise... and yet you know I disagree with it. I think several times I said your own prejudices and bias corrupt your points... there's a chance you're prone to be bullheaded and lack any introspection

I do believe you are dehumanizing people when you take away all context and generalize their motives with actions and trends.

But I'm the evasive, dishonest, and pretentious dude who can't form an argument as if I'm not really arguing with you.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Who have I dehumanised? If you agree with the premise why did you claim I'm dehumanising people? You make no sense whatsoever lol. That you responded to this with baseless claims is a demonstration of your desire to take me to task over it without touching the premise itself, because you know it would be ridiculous to try. I make these simple cartoons with simple points precisely so we can all be more clear on the principles that matter, before people bury them all underneath rhetoric, technicality and excuses. This isn't some isolated case of you happening by my work and pointing out how it falls short, because you've just admitted you agree with it. You have tried digging at me multiple times now and each time it has been to raise something other than what I've said to discredit me. Your intentions are flagrantly dishonest and you're so much of a snake you hide as much about yourself and what you think as possible while inventing complete crap about me. You leave everything to inference, so you can deny anything about yourself that who you're speaking to assumes. Not putting your cards on the table makes it necessary for anyone conversing with you to make assumptions. Yeah, you have noble intentions while you suck someone's cock in the comment section about how intellectually beneath you and emotionally unstable I am. Your contempt is blatant yet you are such a coward you won't be direct about it. Get out you passive aggressive stuck up charlatan cunt.

It also took you like 3 times of me asking if you agreed to the premise of the toon or not, with you dodging each time, only for you to claim you do the moment I accuse you of not agreeing with it. Christ you're slime.

Mole

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Maybe you should have read what i wrote.. and to answer your question.. I agree with your premise, but I believe you did it in a way that dehumanize people. I already spent some time clarifying what I meant, i'm not going to repeat myself

I initially left you with 2 thoughts and 2 suggestions.. I never really expected a lengthy and defensive reply... but you have your own biases and you refuse to acknowledge them.. That's why you have a very lengthy reply to a person who has no interest in taking you to task or engaging in a lengthy debate

kat37

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Yeah, after reading over the comments this guy seems very insincere or by the least intent on ignoring your points so he can continue to push his own as if yours didn't preemptively nullify or falsify them.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Yeah, responding to what he says is me ignoring his points. Fuck off XD.

kat37

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Just because you respond doesn't mean you're not ignoring his points that is also pretty obvious and the way you made that statement shows you're trying to frame an argument. I can do the same measure like this though with some more sincerity

See clearly you're trying to ignore him by changing the conversation.

Look I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but you've already came at me, after I've read both of your long commentary, with a red haring. You make it very hard to believe you actually hold this as real position and not some measure to either get attention or to move political discourse with wedge issues. Its like reading the documentary of intelligent design use of the Wedge strategy from the discovery institute or merchants of doubt. Thats really all I have to say so sorry but anything else you got I can't really believe you

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I have spent a lot of my time reading and responding to what he has typed. For you to define my responses as ignoring what he says. You couldn't be more disrespectful if you tried. Fuck off.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

A) take your own pretentious advice. You saying it is a "wedge issue" is irrelevant to the discussion. It does not change anything or mean anything.

B) Er, no. I am not calling individual people evil scum who shouldn't be listened to. I am arguing a general, universally applicable principle. Are you just throwing crap around and hoping something sticks? Try arguing against the point of the cartoon. Let me make it super simple:

If someone labels a person as hateful, or claims they are offensive, or claims they utter hate speech, as a means to avoid engaging with what they say, it is wrong. Avoiding discussion of an issue by claiming ones opponent is so bad they don't deserve being engaged with in the first place. Is it okay to do that or not? That's not even touching on what happens in practice either, when people are labelled with things that actually don't apply. Like calling someone who isn't a Nazi a Nazi.

Where the hell is all this other bilge coming from? You have done nothing but avoid the point since you got here.

C) When I state my opinions I speak for myself, which is obviously not saying only my opinion matters. If you're going to be a clown please do it somewhere else because reading this bullshit is honestly annoying. I have not denied anyone's humanity, so why you keep bringing that complete shite up I have no idea. I'm talking about an actual behaviour, not a thought, not an opinion, not something in someones mind that I'm claiming I can read, something people are actually doing. Observable, categorical actions. Like a media headline that claims someone is a far right thug who isn't those things. Or a mass of activists chant "racist, sexist, anti-gay, kkk, go away" when nobody they're yelling at is any of that. I mean the USA has, what, 10,000 KKK members in a population of over 300,000,000 yet every bloody far left activist protest chants about the ghosty bastards.

All you've done is come here and misinterpret everything I've said, avoid the topic at hand to divert it into something it isn't and bring up entirely irrelevant concepts like "wedge issues" as if they're meaningful. Pretentious balls.

CuriousFerret

5 years, 9 months ago

link

What a waste of a perfectly good milkshake.

Everyone that chooses to engage in any public or even private discourse needs to weight the best way to present their ideas and goals. Restraint is at times needed to prevent the discussion from breaking down completely. It's not simply what we want to say but how we go about it. If no one is willing to listen then nothing can be received.

We must consider our own contributions and how they will effect the exchange, and whom ever is holding the forum it takes place in has a responsibility to remove disruptive characters intent on shutting down the discussion completely.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ CuriousFerret

Precisely, provided what is considered to be disruptive behaviour is universally applicable. As in the acceptability of a particular behaviour should never be a partisan issue, one rule for thee and one for me.

CuriousFerret

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Impartial enforcement is key to maintain integrity trust.

Refusing rebuttal simply because they happen to be opposition defeats the purpose of debate and argument.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ CuriousFerret

Indeed, and that is exactly the state of discourse we today inhabit. Partisan application of principles.

CuriousFerret

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Lot of true independent politicians got elected for local posts in your last election.

Perhaps there is a change coming to the status quo of party politics in the U.K. at least.

RagnarArcano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I believe that there is no such thing as hate speech, there is just speech that happens to be distasteful or offensive... it doesn't matter because (get this journos...) there just words. Unjust actions deserve just recourse (a convoluted of saying "do unto others as you would have done to you.")

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ RagnarArcano

I'd say there is speech that is hateful, there can be hatred in words. The problem is in using "hate speech" as a label for whatever is convenient to the person using it, so they never have to engage with their opponents. Also it isn't wrong in itself to feel hatred, or to express hatred, so general terms like "hate speech" that contain the implicit axiom that hatred is wrong are fundamentally flawed. The way forward is to get specific and engage with what is being said, rather than having a social convention of designating someone as a hate figure so nobody has to talk to them.

anonymousih

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Don't be silly, if only offended people have the right for power, any side could yell "WE ARE OFFENDED" loud enough to receive power... Oh wait, i just got recent info that if you claim you're offended WITHOUT being part of a certain group (or even being part of "Another" group), you should... "Check your privilege" or "your offended status cannot be legitimate when patriarchy / race / gender / etc has got your back". How does this thing "having your back" even works when it gives you NO CONCRETE ADVANTAGE, especially when some of those "privileged folk" have bad to horrible lives, all while receiving unwarranted hatred from idiots presuming they know "them" (there are no individuals, only 1 race / gender etc) because of such a meaningless criteria?

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ anonymousih

Indeed, it's so obviously about power and nothing else.

alistair

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The concepts of "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crime" are horrific.

"Hate Speech" is expression with the "wrong" thoughts/intentions in the mind of the person expressing them.  Alternately, for those who are honest about not being mind-readers, it is mere blasphemy for uttering Forbidden Words, intention-be-damned.

In all cases, the definition is dependent on the perception of others, and as such is subject to the whims of the mob and never one of principled objection.  "You claim what you said was a joke?  Well I don't think so, therefore gulag."

Similarly, "Hate Crime" is criminal action with the "wrong" thoughts/intentions in the mind of the criminal.  Take two hypothetical crimes, ostensibly identical.  If one instance is given additional punishment because of some sort of "hate crime" statute, you are no longer punishing the ACTION, you are punishing the THOUGHT.

Both "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crime," at their core, are the same thing: THOUGHT CRIME.

People who hold up "Hate Speech" like it is a concrete thing are useful fools.  Just because they have a reasonable definition of it does not mean that others also have a reasonable definition.  Once power is given to to the term, unscrupulous people WILL use it to gain power, because humans are human.  This is happening across the Western world today, and getting worse.

This power is granted by the entities (governments, corporations, communities, and individuals) who allow ideological bullies to manipulate them with the threat of social, financial, and legal sanction.

When someone says you're not allowed to say something, the correct and only response should be "Go Fuck Yourself."  The risk of doing this is high, because humans are reactionary animals and some of us are just jerks, but it is the only position that will preserve the fundamental right of expression at the core of modern civilization in the West.

Any member of Inkbunny should understand this, especially those of us who migrated from other sites as they fell down the ideological slide into totalitarian nightmares.  This battle is fought every day, in every minor interaction.  It starts with the smallest instance.  Don't Let Them Win.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ alistair

Indeed, it is demands for power disguised as moral purity. No debate, any dissent is despised and acquiescence is expected. Complete and utter deluded bastards.

AsherTye

5 years, 9 months ago

link

It's easier to label something with an umbrella term to make it socially unacceptable to discuss than to take the time to dissect it and prove any flaws it may have, particularly if you've had to do so again and again. Of course as history so often proves, the easy way is seldom the way that provides a lasting benefit.

It does not help that humans as a whole tend to have the attention span of gnats.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ AsherTye

It would inspire a lot less revulsion from me were it a form of dismissal against positions that had been repeatedly already proven false. However, the most common use of this form of dismissal is by full of shit leftists who are wrong in their beliefs and can't argue in their favour, thus resorting to the tactic of trying to make sure their opponents never get a word in.

AsherTye

5 years, 9 months ago

link

A debate that requires the other side to remain quiet is merely a lecture, which tends to also require an inherent sense of superiority that does nothing to strengthen one's position on a subject. I can launch into a spiel all day about how I'm right and you're wrong, but if I've effectively gagged you from defending your position or attacking mine claiming it offends me, it usually means you have points I cannot counter and thus don't want brought up. Or in layman's terms I have my head up my ass. I still say speech is a right that should be used responsibly, but trying to curtail it because one finds it "distasteful" is dangerously naive. Ultimately the benefits of Free Speech to generate, nurture, and improve upon good ideas outweigh the dangers of bad ideas gaining traction before they can be properly discredited, even if such discrediting has to be done multiple times.

But what do you do with someone who has (willfully or not) no sense of self control where what they say is concerned? Words have power and people can be easily swayed by a fiery rhetoric, amongst other things, even when said rhetoric has nothing substantial behind it. Responsibility for one's own actions is important, but history does have instances of a persuasive demagogue inspiring otherwise normal people to violence for their own ends while maintaining their own innocence with regards to the damage done. "I just said something, it's not my fault this other person interpreted it as a call to action."

(Sorry about the double post, I forgot to hit the reply link before posting the first time.)

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ AsherTye

Indeed, I would never approve of silencing any side of any discussion in public discourse. I am simply more disgusted when people are cut off because the person cutting them off can't argue for their own crap position. Our accountability for what we say is inherent in people's reactions to it, but every person is their own agent, they are an individual moral actor. Who will get taken away by fiery rhetoric without it being anything to do with their own choices? I am extremely reluctant to follow that line of thinking because everyone who makes the point that people can be brainwashed by dangerous orators assumes they are themselves immune. It's not about the person speaking who psychologically controls others, it's more that people go along with speech that speaks to how they really feel, that touches something they really believe. It is also about giving away ones own responsibility, to be carried on the shoulders of a charismatic leader, a will to be a sheep, because while it may knock out your individuality, it will relieve you of the burden of making decisions and thinking things through.

I will never put the responsibility for people deciding to do that, to not be their adult selves and let someone else guide them, on the charismatic orator. Hell no.

AsherTye

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Oh mark me, I would never advocate that the perpetrator of a crime be relieved of the responsibility for such.  Humans are not hammers, and a person who acts to the detriment of others because they were persuaded to do such are no less responsible for their actions than one who acted of their own accord.    "I was only following orders" is never an excuse for illegal, or even poor, behavior, nor is "it sounded right at the time."

My thoughts move towards a mutual responsibility between the actor and the instigator.  The reverse has been seen after all; with some persuasive orator calling to action good deeds they themselves cannot do and sharing at least some of the praise with the benefactor(s) who answer the call.  Granted; there cause and effect are more easily established, but if a orator's rhetoric (either through malice or ignorance) consistently inspires his like-minded listeners to commit crimes, should he not share at least part of the responsibility for encouraging such consequences?

Case in point: were I to use my bully pulpit to constantly portray another as amoral and degenerate just because I am "offended" by what they write or say, and this inspires those listening or reading who share my view to seek this person's removal (either through banning or other means), do I not share some of the blame even though I never once specifically called for them to be banned?  Even if I claim it was not my intent to get them banned?

Therein lies the problem because, obviously, this would be a dangerous precedent at the top of an exceedingly slippery slope.  Everyone should be expected to accept responsibility for their actions, naturally, but (with certain exceptions) expecting someone to take responsibility for another's actions is just ludicrous.

Sorry, I kinda pulled you off the actual topic of your cartoon.  Actively trying to silence someone by labeling them "hateful" or "Nazi" is never a sign the person making the claim has an argument that holds water.  If someone can't make an actual counterargument, they're either being lazy or don't know what they're talking about.  Worse, its inherently arguing in bad faith.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ AsherTye

I'd say that I'm fine with regulations against direct calls for violence, and against slandering people with lies about them. But as with all laws and rules, what concerns me most is their even, equal and factually correct application. All well and good to point to the evil in someone's words, if that is actually what one is doing. Instead, the commonplace, mainstream practice isn't to point to, with argument and evidence, the immorality in someone's words but rather to label someone as being evil as a tactical smear to discourage and sidestep ideological opposition. This subversive perversion of an otherwise upright and noble goal to repudiate evil is a complete outrage.

BrotherPawden

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Hate speech does not exist, those who think otherwise use it as a censorship tactic.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ BrotherPawden

I think it is important to acknowledge that hateful rhetoric exists, that one can express hatred with speech, but "hate speech" is a tactic rather than a principle that is evenly applied. The people who are in favour of shutting down others with the term "hate speech" have plenty of hateful things to say themselves. Hatred needs to be expressed, it is an essential human emotion, so the important thing to note is who/what is being hated and why, instead of this shit where one side can be as derogatory and hateful as it likes while expecting the other to shut up or they're evil.

AsherTye

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

KevinSnowpaw

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

I say bring on the hate speech! makes it way easier to know whos a dick head and who isent.

but yeah as useual you made a good point with this cartoon and as sombody who is sick and tired of the bised media in this country (USA) I can only imagine it must be far worse over there, were you can be criminilized for teaching a pug to nazi salute as a joke.

when the actual Nazis, tried a man for doing the same thing with a golden retriever (i think) and then droped the charges.

because even the FUCKING NAZIS thought it was silly. We have arrived at a point were the social justice mob is more Anal then the Nazi party XD go figure.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ KevinSnowpaw

I'm mostly just in a state of anger and confusion that such obviously bullshit concepts are constantly peddled from the very top of our societies. Stuff so paper thin, that takes mere moments of clear thought to see through, yet its even written into UK law. Disgraceful, shameful.

KevinSnowpaw

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Yeah its insane and scary. I tell myself the stupid shit we get in america is just becouse shit sells but the media in the uk is a tool. It is here to but not as bad since here i can call them brainless cucks without fearing jail time for being offensive

ZeloxQuo

5 years, 9 months ago

link

"Hate speech" must stop.

"Battery through damage to property and throwing of things on others" must continue...

Also

"Punch and assault anyone I disagree with" must continue...

But "hate speech" must be stopped.

moyomongoose

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

There are some things that if publicly stated could really be labeled as hate speech.

However, when determining what to label as hate speech, discretion and common sense should exercised.

The problem is, there many out there now days who seem to aimlessly throw "hate speech" labels around at everything and anything like throwing shit on a wall to see if it sticks.

Now watch some ass hole come along and call this comment I just posted as "hate speech"...I'm sure there are some who would do it.

MaximilianUltimata

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ moyomongoose

That's the point I was about to make. Just because there are people running around calling others Nazis doesn't mean that Nazis never existed. Hate speech goes all the way back to the Old Testament, when Christians claimed that Jews would go out and kill the children of Christians to use their blood in their rituals and matzo.

The point of hate speech is to effectively make shit up about a group or a person until the majority fears or better yet hates them, enough to either exile or hunt them. It has happened all throughout history and still happens today. Once you get past the social media gutter trash and hashtag movements, you can find some extremely valid forms of hate speech, and people who have already acted out on those claims. Tiller the Baby Killer, Pizzagate, claims that all Mexicans and foreigners want to rape children, claiming the Democrats want to murder all the babies, claiming the Democrats want to murder all the Christians, claiming the Democrats want to murder all the white people, claiming the Democrats are traitors to the country and using Deep State connections to try and overthrow the entire government...

The list goes on. Hell, a new conspiracy pops up pretty much every other month in a desperate attempt to sow discord and hope that somebody offs whoever it is the person or group in question doesn't like. The thing is, the First Amendment doesn't allow you to issue death threats or incite violence against people, and court cases have been fought over exactly this. Hell, there's one big one being fought right now (see: Alex Jones). This has led to people skirting the legal line by using inflammatory rhetoric like what I listed up there. As I have explained several times previously:

"You are gearing your audience to be openly hostile with your opponents. If there is truly a secret demonic cabal working towards genocidal/omnicidal goals that will come to fruition soon™, you aren't going to just protest in front of a marble building and waggle your finger disapprovingly at Nancy Pelosi. Depending on how unhinged you are, you are being implicitly encouraged to take drastic and extremely violent measures. (see: Pizzagate, Charleston Church, parents of Sandy Hook victims, victims of other publicized mass shooting events, etc)"

There's a reason why Alex Jones shat a ton of bricks when someone actually went to the place that Pizzagate targeted with an assault rifle to do God knows what and spent the next few days desperately backpedaling despite being so eager to be the conspiracy's spearhead previously.

Hate speech exists, and you'll see it better once you stop paying so much goddamn attention to hashtag activists, copycats, and dumbasses on the internet.

moyomongoose

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

I've noticed it's getting to where even those on the left can't use their own creativity in condemning others. They have to follow a pre-program pre-set NPC narrative.

Even a leftist who criticizes Donald Trump could be accused of hate speech by other leftists by saying something original like, "If Trump's brain was placed in a petri dish, it would look like a water bug on an ocean".
The originality part of it would be considered by an increasing number of NPC people as "hate speech" because, while they consider the idea as being on spot, the wording deviates from the NPC set narrative.

According to an NPC notion that is gaining more and more acceptance these days, the criticism must be confined to, "Orange man bad. Orange man bad. Orange Man bad." in order to avoid a hate speech accusations because of originality.

https://youtu.be/8K99YqGDi9Q?t=9

Aila

5 years, 9 months ago

link

i just wanna know who would waste a milkshake when piss is free

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Aila

That would be a much more serious offence in law and the people who throw milkshakes are colossal chickenshits.

GreenPika

5 years, 9 months ago

link

And yet no one wants to see the problem, that is, till THEY find themselves on the wrong end of it.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ GreenPika

I think it has a lot to do with people glossing over the issue in their own minds provided it is only happening to people they disagree with. It is a relief to intellectual cowards when they don't have to engage with or listen to opposing views, so if people they can't argue against get taken off the board by bad tactics it does people who are full of shit a favour. Convenience and the maintainence of power over the narrative.

GreenPika

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

I must be one of those rare assholes who actually fears the idea of tough questions being withheld from challenging me. Sweet lies can kill you.

KEM0SABE

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Interesting opinions on hate speech. I wonder what Jo Cox thinks.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ KEM0SABE

Not much I'd wager. None of the people targeted as being guilty of hate speech are anything anywhere near extremists who call for murder. The man who killed Cox was a complete lunatic. But hey, it's totally not irresponsible as fuck to pin the actions of murderers on completely unrelated people just because you disagree with their political opinions. That's not insane or anything.

MarquisVulpes

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

If Nigel Farage is a furry, would this be his fursona?

Revresbo

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I'm going to regret posting this, I can already tell.

Calling something "hate speech" is about control in the same way that calling taking things that don't belong you to "stealing" is. Hell, all laws are about "controlling" behaviour.

Hate speech is specifically not allowed under freedom of speech because it incites violence. It's not allowed because it constitutes at threat, something also not allowed under freedom of speech laws. Legitimizing this kind of speech creates notable upticks in violence against minorities. This could be seen in the UK with a spike in hate crimes after the referendum on Brexit, it can be seen in the States after Trump's election. It can be seen when a terrorist says "Subscribe to PewDiePie." Putting these views out publicly emboldens those who hold it secretly, and real people come to real harm as a result.

Before anyone tries to strawman me here, I never mentioned the term offensive, just hate speech. Offensive is subjective. Offending can even be objectively good. However, if you rely on humour or discourse offending the marginalized, once again you embolden and legitimize those who hate them and make it easier for them to act on that.

Relatedly, It amazes me that the very concept of politeness is nowadays somehow deserving of scorn and that deliberately distressing people is held up as desirable.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Revresbo

Don't you notice how nebulous this is? What, precisely, is causing this spike in "hate crimes" and how do you know to connect the two? The assessment of a hate crime in UK law is pursuant to the "perception" of any observer. You literally assume the motivation for and committing of a hate crime. This is clearly absolute bollocks. What do these hate crimes constitute? There's also the fact that this concept is never applied to communists or muslim theocrats, you know, the two biggest sources of worldwide terrorism, with Islam being the banner under which over 80% of all terrorist incidents in the world take place. But hey, lets just talk about "hate speech", this nebulous concept that applies to nothing specific and is pinned on whoever anyone feels like using it towards.

Politeness indeed.

alistair

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Revresbo

Please excuse my additional commentary on your commentary, I'm feeling verbal lately.

Hate speech is specifically not allowed under freedom of speech because it incites violence. It's not allowed because it constitutes at threat, something also not allowed under freedom of speech laws.

Since there are already laws against incitement, why is the term "hate speech" needed?  You are arbitrarily conflating two things, and axiomatically assuming "hate speech" is a term with a concrete definition that all people share.  Be less sloppy with your semantics.

Legitimizing this kind of speech creates notable upticks in violence against minorities.

Citation needed.  As far as my knowledge goes, insulting banter between heterogeneous groups is one of the few things that actually helps bridge cultural divides.

This could be seen in the UK with a spike in hate crimes after the referendum on Brexit, it can be seen in the States after Trump's election.

I don't know the hard statistics (quite a lot of the supposed incidents in the US were hoaxes, from my understanding), but what you're pointing to is that reporting on supposed hate crimes went up.  This happened because the dying old-guard media will use anything in chasing the almighty dollar or in advancing their political causes, no matter how false.

I never mentioned the term offensive, just hate speech. Offensive is subjective.

So is "hate speech."

if you rely on humour or discourse offending the marginalized,

You may not realize it, but you are now claiming to speak for "the marginalized" like a good Soviet-style class warrior.  You are attempting to use an amorphous collective to gain rhetorical power over anyone who disagrees with you.  I know it doesn't seem like it, and it seems like you're just being a Good Person, but this is actually what you are doing.  Who are "the marginalized?"  Can they not speak for themselves?  Who are you to speak for them?

Relatedly, It amazes me that the very concept of politeness is nowadays somehow deserving of scorn

You are making several assumptions here that you should probably reexamine.  "Concept of politeness?"  What is that?  I think you are confusing principled objection to thought and tone policing with selfish rejection of respectful behavior.  Consider the difference between the two, and reassess the instances you have in mind.

and that deliberately distressing people is held up as desirable.

More assumptions.  You are the person who walks up to a fight and, not knowing what's going on, join the side that is the most nicely-dressed.

I think you mean well.  I also think you should dive deeper into the actual positions of those you seem to oppose, not the positions you imagine they have.

RolandPerteev

5 years, 9 months ago

link

My only question is will a milkshake still bring all the boys to the yard?

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ RolandPerteev

Not anymore XP.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Noooot really.

I mean granted some people, regardless of 'side', can attempt to claim absolutley anything as 'offensive' or 'wrong' to get it silenced. A favored tactic of the far right really even if they tend to frame it more as a 'moral majority' nonsense non-argument. But generally it's just a nicer way of calling the person in question an asshole, while giving them a chance to recant if the assholishness was not in fact their meaning.

For example, let's say someone uses the N word.

Unless that person is freaking five years old, they know what they are doing. They are using a deliberately offensive term. A term designed to elicit a specific response from someone. It is a word with a ton of baggage and the person knows that going in.

Now there could be many reasons for doing this. Some pathetic edgelord kid trying the stupid 'well it's your fault for being offended' argument because said kid hasn't grown up and needs some kind of personal validation by calling out a hypocrisy which never existed. Someone looking to cause a needlessly deep emotional wound by bringing up a term inescapably tied to the mass murder, torture and enslavement of countless people.

Or maybe the person is just a moron who thinks melanin really does make one inhernetly superior because god damn it that's all they have to validate their sad, sad lives.

Pointing out the hateful and harmful nature of that speech isn't really about 'control'. It's about calling out the person in question with the most vague and blanket term possible because people generally don't know and don't care what flavor of stupid is being dealt with.

Which, personally, I think is a mistake.

Edgelords can be educated. Or "EDGE-ucated" I suppose. Most of them simply seem to have this problem where they haven't grown up and still think that making up a hypocrisy straw man is the same as 'winning' against someone else. I doubt most of them genuinely buy into idiotic hate so much as they don't know how else to feel like they matter.

it's a big problem in our world overall, especially with all this 'keep up with the Jonses' oligarchal bullshit that has been shoved down everyone's throats for centuries. But once you get it into their heads that personal happiness can only come from knowing, fixing, and being content with yourself, I have a feeling alot of that will change for most of said group. After all catharsis from the 'you're not the boss of me' impulse has to get tired by the time a person hits their mid 20s.

The same can be said for those who just use it on impulse to inflict harm. It's really just something they have to unlearn. A display of stunted emotional expression. It's the same reason you see so many people whining about 'betas/weak males' and jumping on to this silly bullshit idea of masculinity. They think aggression is the same thing as strength and from a verbal standpoint how much more aggressive can you get than shouting words and phrases associated with the systematic oppression and death of a group of people. Be it a racial group, or religious group, or LGBT individuals, or what have you. Teach these people how to cope like adults and they won't go around trying to pull this schoolyard bullshit.

Now the last group would be the hardest and most dangerous. But at the same time probably the ones to benefit most from help. Because if a person has to prop up their notion of self worth on their 'race' or ethnic group or skin color or whatever... that's gotta be a marker for just all kinds of really deep and painful issues.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

One sees all the time people labelled as hate figures, like Sargon of Akkad as one such youtube example, in order to discourage anyone from listening to them. That's what this cartoon refers to. That is about control, not correctly identifying hatred in speech. It is also never applied to communist extremism or Islamic extremism. It is a tactical term for controlling public narratives, not a benign identifier for hatred. Simple as that.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I mean, people tend to call out communist or islamic extremists all the time... and many people tend to lump anyone who is even slightly center left or anyone of either islamic faith or middle eastern background as an extremist. So it's not like it's exclusively a one-side problem.

I don't know how it is over there but over her we've had people verbally and at times physically assault Muslim women for being 'terrorists' just for going about their day. Back at my last job I remember someone giving shitty looks to some woman wearing a birqua when all she did was come in looking for a decent water filter because the Flint thing was still big in the news and everyone in the state was worried about led. Like, goddamn dude, lady's just trying to be safe. Our city tap water is shit anyways the hell you think she's going to do with it?

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The media doesn't. It makes excuses for left extremism and Islam on a daily basis. Also, I'm in the UK, not the USA, and here hate speech is actually something written into law and people are arrested for having "wrong" opinions or saying "offensive" things. So subjectivity and perceived hatred are written into law as though they denote objective standards.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I admit I don't pay much attention to the 'media' but I haven't seen any real excuses for 'left extremists' or 'Islamic extremists'.

If anything I've only ever seen people vilify anyone who isn't a slightly left of center corporatist or stir up irrational fear about Muslim people because oh god no, Dearborn has football practice on a different day due to the majority Muslim population and that's totally scary and unamerican.

Now admittedly I haven't watched the BBC basically at all since Moffat was allowed to screw up Dr. Who six ways from Sunday. So maybe for them it's different. But the only extremists I ever see getting pardoned are people who go around killing Muslims or other 'brown people' and getting away with it because the world has gone insane. Orange-aid man just pardoned a guy who stabbed a fifteen year old detainee to death in a medical tent. Even if the kid was part of ISIS, which there is no proof of, that kind of shit should land him in the Hauge.

Yet the most I see about anyone Islamic is the latest instance of some guy shooting a Seik gas station attendant because he can't tell the difference between him and a Muslim man, or some poor woman getting yelled at for sitting in a target food court while being Muslim. Those aren't really things you can 'spin' to make the victims the bad guys.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

When muslims or communists are violent in public they arent identified in the press as what they are. "Protesters", "anti fascist groups", euphemism and softballing language is ubiquitous when referring to these types. Meanwhile those who oppose them here like Tommy Robinson are universally panned as bigots, racists, far-right, etc etc. It is a clear bias. I have seen thousands of examples of this. Who the fuck toned down the NZ mosque massacre?

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I mean, I'm not aware, at least here in the US, of any communists BEING violent. All the communists I know are pretty placid people, if more than a bit nhilistic due to how effed our nation is.

As for violence initiated in the US by an Islamic person the last instance I can think of for that was a few years back when some psychologically fucked up young man clearly struggling with his sexuality shot up a night club in florida because his parents were clearly overly-orthidox fuckheads and it drove him insane. But then that kind of thing happens with the kids of Chistian fundies here all the time. So really the only spin was that people tried to make it about militant Islam and not some lone, disturbed young man finally snapping after years of internalizing a metric butt-ton of issues and taking it out on other people. Before that there was the Boston Marathon thing and honestly, that labeling was pretty apt for what it was.

Now, I will say that over here you see white nationalists get off and be mislabeled all the time. Young men with clear ties to organizations like the KKK carry out murder sprees or attacks and the mainstream media trying like hell to downplay those connections. Roof in particular comes to mind along with that guy who tried running protestors over in Charlottesville. Militant white nationalism is a major problem in the USA but the news in general is terrified of flat out admitting it exists. But I'm hard pressed to think of any 'mislabeled' Islamic or Communistic groups.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Antifa.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

They're not really inherently communistic. Even if there are communists and anarchists among their ranks. Plus, at least over here, I'm pretty sure they not only get called out for the times when they may be violent but in many cases get called out when they are not.

Admittedly I am firmly in the camp of 'nonviolence until it is no longer an option', so I disagree with the methods of some within said group even i I agree with the idea. But I think calling them inherently communistic is kind of a major leap.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

They're violent and filled with communists. There are also different flavours of anarchist, but they're still violent collectivist thugs and no media outlet in the mainstream identifies them as such.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Again, from knowing many people who either have loose ties to these kinds of groups or who are in fact communist, I think you're over-estimating the inhernet collectivist nature pretty heavily.

Now it's true that some people within Antifa have been overly violent. I won't deny that. That is one serious point where I disagree with them. However as far as I've ever known they run the gamete of the left political spectrum. Hence why you have some anarchists and some communists and even some people on the socialist end of things all working together in this regard. So really I can't see the communism link beyond a vague 'the left tends to lean a bit more collectivist sometimes' thing. That really seems like a major leap.

And again, not condoning it when Antifa gets violent. Not at all. More just disagreeing with them being 'communistic'

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

They're far left collectivists. Communism is all over their movement. It's a basic fact. Now one may quibble about individuals in the movement who don't technically identify themselves as communists, but that's the kind of slippery crap that is never extended to the "far right" they claim to be against. There's no nuance there, funnily enough. If you don't agree with the far left then you're a fascist. I call antifa communist because they're largely communists. That's what they actually are.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Well I don't know about other people but I see a ton of nuance in the far right. It's just that it's all rooted in the same idiotic ground state. That being people looking to harm or damn others for the sake of their own personal well being.

Blame my aspie-ness if you want but I tend to focus on categorization. I also have a background in Engineering (because again, Aspergers) and have spent a ton of time studying poli-sci so I often fixate on these minutia. And while Antifa may have a good deal of collectivists in it, I can't in good faith claim that it is collectivist itself as that isn't a driving ideology of the movement. Just as I would be loath to put every far right individual in the same basket. There are genuinely people who have these fucked up ideas and yet may not be racist, or sexist, or homophobic. Though I doubt you'd see anyone devoid of all of them. Some may be religiously motivated and some not. There is alot to dissect if you're willing to look past the blanket of 'screaming for the death of the 'other' and never realizing that the second said other is gone the bigger groups will turn on smaller ones to keep up momentum because that's how fascism rolls'.

Which is another issue I have, on a side note. People calling anything they wish fascism when in truth it's a very specific, if intentionally flexible at its edges, ideology rooted heavily in unity though xenophobia, nationalism and populism.

But I digress. An argument can be made that the far right often looks more 'like' than far left due to the nature of many current groups who lean into that part of the spectrum, but there is indeed nuance there and it should be addressed properly, I agree. However that does not make painting the whole of antifa with the same brush very helpful in and of itself. The ultimate problem here is one of insufficient categorization and examination. Something most people seem ok with because somehow they can shut their brains off without at least three screens and a book in front of them at the same time.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

You may see nuance, but this cartoon is about the complete lack of nuance which is completely dominating mainstream discourse. Individuals who pay attention to what people say and think about the issues and arguments raised, rather than labelling people as evil to avoid having to pay attention, are not whom this cartoon addresses. The more people who grapple with the arguments as they actually are, the better. Antifa is something people choose to identify with, like the alt-right is, so one can't be a supporter/member of antifa without endorsing far left collectivism and political violence. I'm not concerned with the differences between communism, varieties of marxist ideologies etc because it is the things they have in common that I chiefly disagree with. Collectivism. I'm prepared to say that antifa isn't simply "communism" but it's a term that describes the essential force behind it.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I don't think we're going to agree on Antifa, because honestly I really don't see any specific 'collectivist' pushes behind it. ideologically they have always seemed more like a reactionary group intent on countering specific ideological pushes more than one with the hope of establishing anything. At least I've never seen any cohesion.

As for the part about the media. Well as I said, I don't pay much attention to it, even if I do pay quite a bit to activists. So I will bow out on that part overall. But with regards to said activists, well, I think you're missing the mark a bit on the intent of the shouting.

The thing is, a massive hunk of the 'far right' want 'us' dead. and by 'us' I mean the people who end up being the xeno in the xenophobia the far right groups center on. A part of the reason activists tend to present a unified front in this manner is basically a way of making sure the far right doesn't try anything funny.

I mentioned before, the far right mentalities being addressed here largely deal with irrational hate and xenophobia. Establishing a thin shell of self worth for people without it by saying 'These other people over here are your inferior'. Now granted some people in these groups are the ones pulling those strings of low self esteem but for many people they are the ones getting the tugs, so to speak. This is why you see people like Jordan Peterson so easily able to manipulate others by cooking up bullshit arbitrary criteria for 'masculinity' and selling it to those who have no real direction. Part of such BS masculine ideals tends to come out with the mistake that aggression equates to strength. That a person who is bitter or aggressive or who acts based on simple impulse rather than deep thought is 'stronger'. And that's part of why the shouting happens. To provide a wall against the inevetable onslought of such people.

Now i don't think it's a very effective long term strategy. After all if a person bases their whole notion of strenght on aggression and you defend with attempts at making yourself 'look big' they'll just find a way to get that big and attack. You have to dismantle the whole beast if you want to neutralize the threat But I will say that, in part, the overall idea is a defensive measure. One that, at least in the short term, can work well depending on the situation.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Racially driven nationalists or 'racial purists' are really just collections of people so ill equipped to deal with basic existential questions about the meaning of life that they take the insane drivel their ancestors cooked up to validate slavery and oppression then feed it to each other like an Incel chat room until they buy a warped world view whole cloth. The people who try to pretend the Norse weren't one of the most racially tolerant, socially progressive and overall humanistic cultures of their era being a particularly bad joke to anyone who knows anything of norse history.

So I guess what I am saying is that hate speech is real. And it should be called out. But not simply as 'hate speech'. People need the time and resolve to carefully dismantle these ideas and put them to bed. From a historical standpoint, a scientific standpoint, a philosophical or theological standpoint. Whatever. Because it's easy to call people out for hate speech as if they don't know they are doing it. But the truth is they do. And they know why better than we ever could. It's ignorance. And the only way to combat ignorance is with the light of knowledge and an iron will.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Note that the application of the concept is publicly partisan. Communists and Islamic extremists, feminists and marxists are exempted from this tactical device. Hate speech is also a concept employed in opposition to the concept of free speech. "Free speech, not hate speech." Censorship is the goal. No matter how much people try to couch it in noble intentions, like identifying hateful, bigoted rhetoric, it is something applied arbitrarily to label people as purveyors of such hateful rhetoric when in actuality they are nothing of the sort.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

again, nooot really. I've seen people on the right apply those broad brusehs and attempt to silence people based on those often misapplied labels all the time.

Well except feminism. I mean yeah people use it like a slur but god damn I don't get why. God forbid we recognize the historical denigration of women and organize egalitarian efforts to fix past mistakes.

As for the 'free speech not hate speech'. Well up until the point where you get calls for violence I agree Granted the far right the world over sees all about violence right now. But as I said before you can't combat that by shouting them down. It just makes them think they have a point when they don't. You have to take the long road, the hard road. Let them speak, then calmly and rationally, but unequivocally, explain to them why they are wrong and being stupid. Then keep explaining. Ensure that the only options they have are to accept that they are dangerously wrong based on all the evidence at hand... or at the very lest ensure the foundations of their delusions are shattered.

People want the far right to go away. It won't. Not until the flaws in the ideologies at hand are carefully laid out and explained. Fascism and its ilk don't stand up well to real scrutiny. Hence why people in my country love Fox news so much. They can pretend the rest is all lies and hide in a blanket fort hearing what they want to hear.

The responsible thing to do is deny them the option of ignorance. Let their own minds do the rest.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

What? Yes really. I think it's bullshit no matter what political faction does it. This is something widespread and fully documented, so it isn't a case of "not really". You haven't been looking if you haven't seen this.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I mean, I stopped watching 'mainstream' news a while ago because it's pretty useless. On any major topic I tend to find about a dozen sources, try to figure out what might actually be going on based on commonalities in the stories then go from there. But yeah I can't say I've seen any 'far left' individual getting any sort of real pass. Mostly when I dare to look it's a mix of far right people screaming about how women who miscarry should be put to death for abortion and the rest of us facepalming and begging the to please stop being so stupid.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Well yes, but it's mainstream media, which means most people DO watch it. It's a problem when the mainstream narrative is filled with lies and misrepresentations. That you personally avoid it has nothing to do with anything.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Everyone lies. Everything lies. I can't be held responsible for the fact that people want to be handed world views on a platter. I'm just saying when I do look, even in short stints, I've never really seen anyone 'far left' get a pass. At most I can say that 'hate speech' is a blanket term used because people don't want to take on the task of confronting and combating dangerous ideologies head on. But as for it being used in places or situations where it's not apt in a general sense I'd have to look for that. Frankly I'm not even sure where I'd start

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

You've commented here to discredit what the cartoon refers to, right? Well you've claimed that this isn't really happening in a sphere that you have admitted to not even paying attention to. So what is your point? Is it or is it not okay to use subjective criteria like finding something offensive or hateful as objective criteria to label speech one doesn't like to deter others from encountering it? I don't think you endorse such tactics, which are bloody everywhere, so what is your point?

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Not close attention anyways, but it's not like the phenomina is nonexistant outside of the media. In fact if anything I'd say it's the more important focus.

Because here's the thing. Every media outlet will spin ideas and ideologies to fit their audience. They just will. I don't look at this cartoon and see anything specific to the 'media' because that's status quo. You mention activists. AKA people, and to me that's the more important part to focus on.

You posit that the idea of using 'hate speech' is a way to control what is said, and at least from a 'boots on the ground' activist standpoint, I disagree. My observations there, which is a place where I do pay attention, would see me argue that it is done as a mental shortcut. They know what is being said is wrong. They know why it's wrong. But they also know dealing with the problem would be exhausting and drawn out and may not even work. It's an unconscious admittance that these are big complex issues they just want to stop being issues.

Which I get. Lord knows I wish I didn't live in a nation where technically I can still be kicked out of my apartment or fired for being bi. In theory at least. I argue that it's not about control, it's just desperation and emotional exhaustion from people who want a problem to go away and who are tired of fighting it.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

That's the thing, the media and activists claim things are "wrong" without saying why or even engaging with the arguments they disagree with. Instead they say someone is hateful or offensive precisely to avoid having to explain themselves. Activists show up to protest by chanting and making noise over the voices of people they're disagreeing with. I don't care how widespread a behaviour is, it is a moral duty to decry injustice. Activists don't know what is wrong or why it is wrong as a rule either, they most often don't even know what the hell it is they're protesting. It is far easier to use labels like racist, homophobe, transphobe, bigot etc etc than to actually explain why an idea or a person fits the description. Because most of the time the people being labelled DO NOT fit the labels assigned to them.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

And THAT I can disagree with. You have to tell people why these things are wrong.

Racism is wrong because it uses arbitrary criteria to unjustly marginalize a group of people for the sake of giving another group something. usually minor social advantage and perosnal catharsis.

Sexism is wrong for the same reasons.

Homophobia/Irraitonal LGBT hate is also wrong for these reasons, but also for perpetuating false and hateful theological ideologies intended to prop up a dangerous status quo based on obsolete and long dead socio-political norms. Thus having the added threat of helping further kneecap society.

Now, I can't say I know many, if any, activists who are ignorant of their cause to that degree... but I could well be wrong. I am not a social person and I have very strict criteria for dealing with other humans so my pool for study is skewed. Granted as a more utilitarian Technocratic Socialist who digs benevolent Machiavellianism I have no problem using such people if it helps stop the 'bad things' from happening.

But it is absolutely right that people should be informed and aware. Simple protest of shouting down the other side isn't enough. But sadly it has its uses and its place in the world of politics. If only because it may help inform the people who hold the leash of a given politician that what's going on has enough fire against it.

Again, I want to clarify that I think we're long past the point where anyone who owns a politician cares what the people think. We're deep into oligarchal, keptocratic nonsense right now in most first world nations. But the big angry crowd has its place

I however can say that you are right that people should use their collective voice to give detailed explinations of why a thing is bullshit as opposed to archaic proto-memes in the form of posterboard.

As for people not being what the labels claim? I think that's something to address on a case by case basis.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

"Racism is wrong because it uses arbitrary criteria to unjustly marginalize a group of people for the sake of giving another group something. usually minor social advantage and perosnal catharsis."

Exactly, which is why I'm against diversity policies and affirmative action. Being against those things, however, gets you called a racist. Being specifically not racist is grounds for being called a racist. Same with sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. It is how bigoted, collectivist policies that judge people by their demographic group, are defended today. Anyone who opposes them is the "real" bigot. So one can see masses of people (our furry fandom is a great microcosm to illustrate it) directly supporting bigoted policies without thinking they're bigoted at all. This has to be countered.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

In an ideal world I would agree, but the thing is that many first world nations and indeed many nations in general still have some very heavy baggage and systemic/institutionalized prejudice in them. Things that you have to combat to get anywhere near egalitarianism.

I'll use my nation as an example because the only major thing I know about the UK is that my ancestors got the hell oppressed out of them and I wish Scotland would bail like most of Ireland did because I think they earned it. However, here in the US we have... worse. Far worse.

For example much of what you hear about racial bias in courts and police-work is very true. Unfortunately a larger degree of black people and specifically young men get far harsher sentancing and in many cases unfair treatment which sticks them in a prison system which then farms them out as absurdly cheap labor abusing their rights as citizens and the negative stigma of felons as justification. People often view pushes against police brutality and unjust profiling as 'identity politics', but to be frank we need it here. We need it bad. Because the number of people being held right now in the US on nonviolent drug charges (mainly pot) is insane.

Or, well, the many states now trying to push absolutely insane abortion bills in to get it in front of the supreme court so they can do away with Row V Wade. Bills that not only rob women of their body autonomy but which would stick the death penalty on a woman for getting an abortion. Even if the fetus is stillborn or nonviable. Even in cases of rape and/or incest.

Collectivism, at least in the form of groups banding together for a common interest, is a natural survival tool. And in cases like these it's vital for the people involved and any allies around to present as much of a unified front as they can. Because unfortuately things are reaching the point where we in the US can't afford to give an inch of ground for fear of our very lives.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

One thing I'll say, because I'm too tired to discuss everything you bring up here, is that there's a very good reason black people in America have disproportionate encounters with the law and get longer sentences. They disproportionately commit crimes. Like, more than any other group in American society per capita. When someone is sentenced in court, it isn't just for the crime they've committed in that instance, it is their history of crime which influences the sentence. Look up the crime stats and see just how much crime is committed by black americans. It is honestly amazing. Never gonna solve that by blaming the courts.

That recent shit with the abortion laws? The punishments they want arent for mothers but for the people who perform the abortions. And none of them want the death penalty for someone having an abortion. It's a hugely complicated issue and the way you've framed it has no nuance whatsoever and is riddled with incorrect information on what the laws actually say.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

They really don't. Like, at all. I have quite a few family members who work within this system and the truth is that especially when it comes to drug related charges (pot, in particular) Black people are convicted more often and sentenced more harshly on average.

The idea that they commit more crimes is a myth perpetuated by those supporting the same broken system.

Keep in mind those numbers you're talking about are based on convictions, and many are dealing with inner city related crime. Truth is that there are just as many meth-cooking, pot growing, gun toting white guys hanging around in the rural areas where I spent half my youth. But they are targeted less and convicted less often because the police departments in those areas are part of insular communities where 'everyone knows each other' and where it's accepted while the school to prison pipeline in urban areas has been a thing for decades.

And I get that it's important to know the statistics. It is. I'm not saying crime, and indeed violent cirme, are absent in poor black communities. Gang warfare and shady dealings are sadly a way of life in such places because it's seen as the only way to survive a broken system. But what the statistics fail to show due to what is monitored is that here in the US poor white people are often stuck in the same situation and do similar things. They just so happen to be ore spread out and live in communities where the relation with the local authorities is more insular.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

It isn't a myth, it's a statistical fact. For it to be a myth you'd have to literally be stating that police are arresting and courts are convicting masses of innocent people and you have no evidence for that at all. If you pick the view without evidence over one with evidence, what do you think that is?

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I mean, they are doing that too. But I'm more stating that they are concentrating more of the arrest efforts and pushing harsher convictions on those from largely black communities.

I actually have quite a bit of evidence for all of that, by the way. Many people in both the legal field and people who work in substance abuse (most notably social workers) Have observed and criticized these behaviors. Leave a post to remind me after and I'll try to add a set of links to get you started after my shift.

But the long and short of it is that yes. There is in fact documented, and in many cases very heavily documented, racial bias in terms of police force operations within the US. Now am I saying 'all cops are bad' or any such nonsense? No. Cops are people plain and simple. But these things do have a racially biased root and in many cases are artifacts of racially motivated policy.

Hell, lest we forget it John Ehrlichman flat out stated that the criminalization of pot was to target black people and 'hippies'.

And while I have no love of pot. In fact I am pretty vocally against it and sick to death of people lauding it as some kind of miracle plant, the manner and rate at which the US prosecutes a relatively harmless drug is insane. Especially in largely black communities. Because let me tell you, the very white county where I grew up had people growing tons of the stuff to sell and not one cop seemed too interested in it. Then again since it's now legal I'm sure many of those neo-hippy growers including people I probably went to high school with are going to avoid any sort of consequence for the years of growing illegally.

But yeah, these issues do have a racial bias to them even if the people who enforce the law often don't. That's why it's called systemic racism. It's built into the system

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Look, noting that police activity is concentrated more in the black community is not evidence of any racist conduct. It is explained clearly by the disproportional representation of black people in crime. I agree that the war on drugs is unjust, but we aren't just talking about drugs and it is unjust for all races. 13% of the US population is black, less than half of that are black males under 35. They're both responsible for and victims of approximately half of all homicides in your country. Nobody is ever going to make this better by pretending it is explained by bigotry inherent in the justice system. These young men are dying and killing eachother by the thousands every year. What evidence is there that the justice system is to blame for this beyond anecdote and baseless inferences?

Like when feminists see a career having an imbalance of males and females and conclude it is explained by systemic sexism, it is pure nonsense to conclude that black crime is explained by systemic racism. It just isn't true.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

in a vacuum you could argue that no, it's not. But then the problem with that is a lack of causation.

Presuming that a disproportionate number of black Americans are involved in crime because they face higher arrest rates is honestly circular. The idea of 'we know they do it more because they are arrested more, and they have more police presence because they do it more'

Outside of a very silly eugenics-based argument I will avoid even detailing becuase i think we can both agree that eugenics is a joke... that doesn't give us causation. Not does it give any real workable details.

Now, as for causation, there IS a huge link between crime and poverty. Both rural and urban individuals often take part in illicit acts becuase they flat out have to in order to pay the bills. So links can be made there, especially since housing policies and loan policies in the 60s were skewed to deny black families access to the suburbs and thus when cities like Flint died in the rust belt you ended up with a ton of people trapped in bad areas with little chance of social or economic advancement.

But the thing is, that happens in rural areas as well. 'gang fighting' might be less common simply due to the space between individuals, but otherwise you see plenty of participation in illicit acts from young rural white kids in poor areas. It's something people who work substance abuse around here deal with constantly. But because the nature of law enforcement and of the courts in those areas tends to be different, such actions are overlooked more frequently.

Now I could link all the various proven documents, leaked conversations and so on which have surfaced showing a persistant and firm racially biased undercurrent in many law enforcement agencies. But that alone isn't entirely fair. Because many are also fairly honest. There are good cops out there who do what they can to be even handed and fair. But the problem is the system itself not only has a large amount of racism in it, but the racism is in many cases built in. Done in such a way that we are still attempting to dismantle it at its core.

As for drug crime? A very large degree of crime in the US is tied to the drug trade. Especially with the upsurge of opioid abuse which has just been devastating to our rural communities. But more often than not shootings and other violent acts are attributable for something involving the flow of narcotics in this nation. Both among black people and nonblacks. Keep in mind that a study done in 04 still up o the DoJ page outlines that nearly a seventh of violent criminals currently incarcerated claimed that the crime was to get drug money.

Not that it was the result of enforcing territory for drug dealing as is often the case with gangs. Not that it was done while on drugs or inebriated. Not even necessarily arrests for possession or dealing.

Just people doing various things to get money for a fix.

ANd the thing is, that's often tied to poverty. Because drugs are escapism. Because people in bad situations tend to seek a way out any way they can get, even if it's simply shoving the right toxin in their body to avoid dealing with the real world for a few hours. And as the unregulated oligarchal nightmare here in the US keeps getting worse more people have fallen into poverty. Hence the aforementioned spike in opioid abuse, which happens in predominately white areas.

the reality of the situation is that the police presence within these more built up urban areas was intended to deal with incarcerating and 'controlling' those populations even if the individual officers involved may not agree. They do get higher quotas and the courts are usually more harsh, which is not good since the US already wrongfully convicts an estimated 10,000 people a year.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The reality of the situation is that black people in the US are still given a very unfair shake and it is a struggle to mend many of these systems to ensure equality. Even acts which are more the result of abuse or negligence often disproportionately affect black people simply because racists in the past fucked over much of the generational wealth and kneecapped efforts for such people to escape that situation.

Flint, for example. While I will absolutely blame Snyder for what happened to Flint I don't think for a second it was racially motivated. I do think it was his attempt to deepthroat nestle's boot and another foolish attempt to slash needed funds for the sake of giving wealthy people more money. But I can't find any evidence that he was being malicious towards black people. Simply short sighted, greedy and stupid. But then the whole 'emergency manager' idea was a farce from the beginning.

however, because so many people in Flint are black due to flocking there when factory jobs were a big deal and being locked out of the suburbs in the 60s, they were the bulk of people who took the brunt of it. Likewise they aren't the only people to get stuck in now that water companies keep charging for undrinkable water. There are indeed white people in flint and many of said white people are just as fucked by the insane policy of charging people for toxic water and cheering when the beneficiaries/thieves who basically stole their water (Nestle) sent a few trucks full of it back as a publicity stunt.

That's really the problem, and that's what needs fixed in the end Institutionalized racism is so deeply ingrained that even policies with no intention of being tied to it can end up affected by it. Be it mandatory minimum sentencing or the citizens of a poisoned city getting screwed over further.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

I don't buy into that defeatist nonsense. Sorry. Take Jews, you'd be hard pressed to find a group of people treated more like shit, yet they thrive everywhere they go because of their own choices, family values and hard work. Chinese people too. Poverty is what leads to so much crime and poverty has its biggest cause in single parenthood. Look at the communities with the highest rate of single parenthood and you'll find the highest rate of poverty.

If you want to see people's lives improve, as I certainly do, you have to give people the responsibility, the agency, to make their own decisions. You will never help a whole demographic of people by looking for every single mitigating circumstance and excuse you can find. Dealt a bad hand? Damn right black people are dealt a bad hand. By their parents.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I mean, some Jewish people thrive. Some don't. Israel is doing 'ok' in the short term but alot of that is religious fanatics with a barely functional understanding of scripture propping up genocidal idiots like Bibi with heavy weapons sales and other support. Again, it's about causation.

Observing demonstrable systemic problems is not the same as being a 'defeatist'. A society is a machine like any other. No matter how uncomfortable it make be you need to be open and honest about the problems within that society if you're going to repair them. And part of that is recognizing that yes, right now the deck in many nations is stacked against black people. And yes, many of those nations were former colonies of European powers. This does not make all white people evil imperialists any more than all black people are evil criminals. But it's the truth. European nations had browbeaten many other nations to get power, realized imperialism was a bad idea (mostly) after WW2 and pulled out of direct colonies leaving many of them disorganized and starting to rebuild.

And likewise the systemic and deeply ingrained racism in the US was and is a heavy part of the problem.

I know we as a culture are conditioned to think that all negativity is bad, but positivity can be just as blinding and just as harmful. We need to be critical of society just as a creative needs to be critical of their work. Would your art ever improve if you didn't sit down and tell yourself every single thing about it you personally thought was shit? if you never took it out looking for feedback?

No, you'd end up drawing stick figures of rob lifeld characters because without data you can't improve and evolve. That's just how humans are.

Exceptionalism, the idea that anyone 'can' overcome these obstetrical, is a cathartic deflection but a deflection all the same. It doesn't produce anything of merit. Because it's easier to reshape the facts or ignore the facts for the sake of 'inspiration porn' than it is to deal with unpleasant realities. It's 'hippy social darwinism' and like any purely darwinian model it doesn't really work.

As for the single parent thing? Not really. As a child who spent many years with only a single parent before my dad and stepmom got involved I can tell you right now that it's not the key hinderance Even more so having observed my moms ex and seen that yes, in fact, one partner can fuck over the family and overspend on themselves.

Poverty is, by and large, a product of eroded worker rights and protections. An economy needs workers able to also be regular consumers in order to evolve and grow. However the greed of the 80s combined with everyone sort of brushing of the automation issue during the Reagan/thatcher era because the computer boom happened... well that all culminated in many nations such as the US and UK having severe wage stagnation and disproportionate inflation. Made worse by the Dot-Com bubble and housing bubbles popping.

One brilliant observation attributed to henry ford was that he'd make more if his workers could also afford his vehicles. Which is true. Workers with sufficient safety regulations, sufficient health care, sufficient wealth to not only subsist but have some small luxuries in life contribute heavily to the economy while those mired in the aforementioned poverty end up contributing almost nothing. Because they don't have the wealth to contribute. And the only way to fix that on a consistent and proven basis is to fix the systems.

Regulations geared towards a baseline quality of life adjustment are the keystone in economic recovery. Which is something black communities in the US haven't been afforded. The biggest growth rates in said communities either happening after the economic erosion started or getting literally bombed away by racists decades before.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

As for crime? I'm not defending criminals. Not at all. But what I am doing is noting the factors which lead to increased crime rates, and demonstrably poverty is a huge one. You're right, black people aren't unique. The systemic racism I mentioned does exist, but there are good and bad black people the same as anyone else. Which is my point. Crime, squalor and suffering are often related back to environmental factors and those factors often include abject poverty Poverty tied heavily to broken systems and poor regulation.

If one person harms another then there should be consequences. They need to be rehabilitated if possible and in the mean time they likely need to be taken out of mainstream society to avoid further damage done. We can't allow people willing to preform dangerous or violent acts to run roughshot over the rest of the population.But I'm observing this though the lens of an Engineer. Using my background. and in doing so, I have to focus on what causes these problems. Black people are not any more or less likely to commit crime in a vacuum. Skin color and ethnicity can be rightly dismissed as a criteria when establishing vectors for criminal behaviors.

However there are vectors which we can identify that, due to circumstance, place black people in a greater risk of falling into situations where they may face crime, per capita, and situations that may put them at greater risk of being victimized by criminals, per capita. Even then saying that black people commit more crimes per capita is somewhat disingenuous given the demonstrably skewed nature of the system.

Ultimately I'm not saying one should over-empathize with a criminal. Hell I'm pretty damn misanthropic myself. a careful deconstruction and dissection of the factors at hand will quickly show that much of the issue with the black community being unfairly maligned is real and is due in no small part to systems and ideas decades or even centuries old. Sociological deadweight from a time when people needed to think the black man was 'naturally inferior' because without that lie the wealthy and not-so-wealthy white men of the day often found it hard to feel any sense of self worth.

A problem we have today, where people foolishly try to measure their self worth against others for validation. A frankly doomed endeavor.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

When I referred to Jews I was talking about what one sees when they are an immigrant, mistreated population in a developed country, just to clarify. Jews in Israel is quite a different scenario. The point is, black people in the west, mainly the USA, are uniquely treated as a downtrodden collective, with an incredible emphasis on how the society treats them rather than how they treat the society. I detest racism and I don't view people in terms of their race, but as individuals. If there is a white person under the same conditions of poverty, poor parenthood, only one parent, surrounded by gang activity, they are just as likely to turn out as criminals themselves as a black person is.

The problem with identifying systemic racism is that it is non-specific. It is assumed that the racism exists and it is emphasised that this racism bares the brunt of the responsibility for how black people behave. This standard is not applied to other racial demographics, except hispanic, though not to the degree of blacks. If we were talking about pre civil-rights USA then you'd have a point, because it was written into the law, easily identifiable. Racism, of course, still exists, but the way it is approached in discourse is heavily one-sided. Like there is also much to be said for anti-white racism, but you'd be hard pressed to bring it up without widespread scorn and scoffing. The way out of this loop is to treat people as individuals, to judge them based on their character and their actions. Otherwise all society is going to do is perpetuate prejudice and never actually solve any problems.

Race relations are arguably worse today in the USA than they were just a few decades ago. The single parenthood rate back in the 1950s, during Jim Crow, was around 25% for black Americans. Today it is around 75%. So in the time since the racist laws ended the family situation for black people has gotten worse, much worse. Has US society become more systemically racist towards black people than the pre civil rights era? The implication is frankly insane. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you write on the issue, the numbers don't fit the theory, there is something going on that cannot be accounted for by the presumption that society is systemically racist against blacks.

It is a categorical, unimpeachable fact that this narrative that society is racist and that's why there's so much failure in the black community is a falsehood. If we ignore the empirical evidence and push that narrative anyway, does it actually help people in need? Think about what such a narrative does to people psychologically, to raise them from childhood to believe that the entire nation they inhabit is opposed to them, intent on their failure. This is not the sort of thing that lifts people up, it grinds them down. I brought up Jews earlier, and Chinese people, as examples of people who have been subjected to awful treatment. They didn't have excuses made for them, they don't see anything close to the problems prevalent in the black community. They, on the whole, thrive everywhere they go. Is it because they are superior races to black people? Well the alt-right may think so, and the far left may think so (both assume the weakness of black people, so everyone else has to help them not be awful), but I sure as fuck don't.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

You can find injustice toward people of all races, sexes, sexualities etc in society, it's good to point it out specifically and deal with it on a case by case basis. Nothing, however, in public policy and institutions today can do damage in the way that 75% of all black children having only one parent can. The family is the spine of society, the bedrock, the most important shaper of who we are. You can hunt for systemic prejudice til the end of time but a broken home breaks children like nothing else. Society doesn't make you fuck without a rubber and have children that can't be cared for, unless you want to assert that the vast majority of births are a product of rape. Sort that shit out, that'll actually help. Not blaming society.

This grand systemic racism narrative has done little other than perpetuate the stagnation of black people. Decades of nothing. It has to stop.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The history of the US is rife with mistreatment of minorities, whatever the 'minority' of the time may happen to be. It wasn't that long ago when my Irish ancestors, or my Bulgarian ancestors, my stempmothers Polish and Slovakian grandparents, Even my great grandpa from Belgim, all were seen as undesirables. Black people got the brunt of it sure, and still do to an extent. Mainly due to the scions of slave owners and bitter southerners repeatedly trying to get back at them for daring to not be slaves anymore. But the problem really one of institutionalized xenophobia. The 'relations' are as bad as they have pretty much always been. It's just a matter of how hard it is to look away and who has been 'allowed' to cross the line into acceptability on the part of those seeking to use that xenophobia for power.

As for the idea of excusing anyone for their behavior based on culture or enviornment, that's not really the point.

Anyone who behaves in a way that puts others at risk of harm should be penalized and, more importantly, rehabilitated if possible. I think that's about as reasonable a statement as can be made. However you always have to be willing to ask WHY said behaviors are what they are. These behaviors are not exclusive to the black community, even if they are disproportionately penalized for them. Being black is not itself something which inherently increases the likelihood of being criminally or violently inclined, which I think we can all agree on.

At some point one has to examine the factors that lead to a behavior, and if one factor leads to such a behavior reliably or consistantly then it needs to be addressed. In this case, that factor would be poverty.

Regardless of skin color gang violence, real gang violence, is purely a product of institutionalized and systemic poverty. You don't see any real life Droogs walking around pulling a bit of the ol' ultraviolence for fun, even though that seemed to be what the shlock suspense films of the 50s and 60s thought teens were all about. These crimes, these acts, are far more likely to happen in situations where the person feels they are in a hopeless and insurmountable situation. Poverty, and especially generational or inescapable poverty, has a direct correlation with violence, drug use and illicit acts all intended to find one form of escape or another from said current situation. And while we can debate how many of those laws are current or how much impact each has, the fact is that many black Americans are generationally stuck in poverty due to racially motivated policies and systems from years back. Some of which still stand today. Systems that many people may not even recognize since they are seen as the norm.

That is why the focus so often and so heavily goes to the African american community. Because these problems impact them more than most, though in most ways they are identical to those faced by others who fall into similar patterns regardless of race/ethnicity.

I am a technocrat, as I have said. To be frank I think that the idea of demanding people 'rise above' will only ever go so far. I am intersted in solutions rather than blame or attempts to assign accountability. As such when I look at this, I see the problems facing people. I see the problems of systemic poverty, of greed, and of racism so heavily and deeply entrenched into the culture of the United States that to many people it's just accepted as part of the landscape.

My nation needs to fix these problems if we are to have any hope of avoiding collapse, and it starts by recognizing and accepting that said symptoms exist.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Ok, cat's fed. I'm fed, done with a rather annoying shift at work (which has reminded me to bring lunch so I don't starve). Had time to think over your comment. Let's do this.

First, I actually want to address the matter of single parenthood. Mainly to put it to rest for the time being.

There is literally nothing wrong with being or having a single parent.

I know many groups attempt to tout statistics, often skewed or poorly compiled statistics, as a means of insisting the two heterosexual biological parent nuclear family model is best. Truth is, it's not. No one familial unit is 'best'. Save for the one which provides the child or children with what they need.

I bring this up now because you've mentioned it before and frankly I feel it's better to address up front than trying to deal with a dozen little tangential asides to it later. Yes, it's true that divorce is more common, as is just having single parent households. Much of that comes from removing stigma around divorce or raising a child without the other parent or indeed without a partner. That is not a bad thing. Many of the children in the old days were forced to endure far worse and far more abusive situations than they are now. The idea of 'staying togeather for the kids' universally ending in teh frustrations spilling out on to the children and often times the children being the brunt of the abuse simply because the frustrated participants rationalize it that way.

The decay of the outdated insistence on one size fits all familial dynamics is a boon, not a hindrance.

Now you may well disagree. And fair enough if you do. But that's where I stand, and for now at least I think it's best to table this specific issue. Ultimately I see the rise of 'non traditional' family units as a feature, not a bug.

Speaking of compariosns between decades past and today, though, let's talk about race relations. The thing is, and it may not seem it from in the UK, race relations in the US aren't really any worse than they have been. It's just that the way they are expressed has changed. In many ways for the better.

Back in the 50s we saw black people unable to speak out for fear of their lives and the lives of their families. The status quo and in many cases the law of the land was oppression and violence for daring to attempt equality. It was grinding weight from this situation which eventually brought out the civil rights movement and the strong vocal opposition to racially motivated oppression.

That never really went away. It changed as ground was gained but the only real shift was in the 90s when the LA riots made everyone feel particularly wary of racism. White supremacists in particular realizing that they could see a wave of violence against them if they continued to push, backing down and letting things cool. Not going away, but easing off for the most part. But only long enough to ensure they wouldn't see more outbreaks of violence like that.

The relations between white people and nonwhite people in the US have always been rocky. In no small pat to the oppression, abuse and straight up murder of anyone who wasn't of the 'correct' race/ethnicity. That's not to say every white person is evil or even seen as evil, we are not. But at the same time you have misclassified refugees being detained at our southern border and their children stolen, no means to get them back and the adoption agencies they are shoved into run by secritary of education (and shame of my state) Betsy DeVoss... when they aren't handed over to human traffickers because nobody thought they'd have to give the kids back. You have native peoples harassed and bullied by corporate concerns when said tribes attempt to defend their sovereign land. The US not only breaking treaties which are still legally binding but in fact having local police forces act in a near military capacity in opposition to said protestors seeking to basically protect what little land hasn't been overtly stolen from them already.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Nah, you don't get to just dismiss single parenthood. Single parents are not completely fine at all, they're a disaster, the statistics on it are perfectly clear. Children with one parent are vastly disadvantaged in just about every area of life. You're an engineer and you're looking at society as if it has no humans in it, humans who make really stupid decisions for a whole host of reasons. You cannot have a reasonable view of society without the human agency in it and you're entire outlook is one of humans being something acted upon with very little acting.

I'm calling it off now, because I can't genuinely be bothered reading another essay on this. The way you see the world is disconnected from reality, that is why in so many decades it hasn't helped black people, but made things worse. Perpetual complaints for the rest of time. In 40 years we'll be in the same place so long as this attitude of yours persists.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Well, if you don't wish to continue I can't force you obviously. But I would like to recommend that you re-examine your views on single parenthood, in particular any statistics which may come from organizations like Focus on the Family. Such studies are almost invariably skewed as such organizations are seeking to prove their ideology is 'correct' rather than looking for objective fact. I'm not sure what the equivalent conservative/religious organizations in the UK are, but I'd be wiling to wager such institutions operate by a similar playbook.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

You reexamine yours. I already did 3 years ago and changed my mind in the face of the evidence. Your views when practiced have achieved nothing and you still haven't faced the basic fact that since the civil rights era the black family has gotten 3 times worse, which by your logic would mean there is more systemic racism now than there was back then. It doesn't tally. There isn't even correlation, never mind causation.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Oh and you can't relegate the impact of single parenthood to be a fabrication of right wing US think tanks, its a worldwide corroborated phenomena.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Not really. I mean, yes it has people outside of the US making the same claims, but generally operating on similar lines of logic. I have yet to see any of these studies, for example, affirm the idea that two parents is fine regardless of it being a CIS/HET couple or a gay/lesbian couple. Every one I've ever looked at has been pretty firm that 'kids need a mother and a father'.

Which is pretty absurd. Especially since it seems to ignore various abuse and neglect statistics to make this point.

I mean in theory having two partners while dealing with poverty could mean more income to go to the child, but that's making a ton of presumptions about both parties having responsible spending habits and always covering costs.

The thing about single parenthood is that when one partner bails, it's generally not from a situation where both parties are mutually invested in the relationship. Likewise 'single parenthood' does not mean the other partner is inherently out of the childs life. Though if they are it's generally by choice and frankly for the best.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

If you have kids with only one adult's income, don't you think that contributes to poverty? Then if you have 75% of all households having only one parent, you seriously don't think this is going to have serious consequences? Human development from childhood is enshrined in biological need, the family structures of today in such high proportions of single parent households is nothing like what human beings have grown up with throughout the tens of thousands of years of our history. Millions of years in fact. Never mind articles, I'm talking about scientific studies, the experience of psychologists and psychiatrists, the collection of evidence.

You do not allocate any credence or room to things people do and how they are raised, you pile it on to systemic injustices perpetuated by society. Even if you were 100% correct on the systemic injustices (and you aren't, the evidence isn't on your side) , you are still missing the human element of the individual and their choices. So your worldview will forever be incomplete. It doesn't take brains to work that out.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

You also need to seriously think about how sociopathic what you've said is. That the kids are better off not having their fathers around. Where's the responsibility of men and women? Get pregnant to someone you don't want to raise your kids with and it's fine, the state will help you, who needs a dad anyway. Never mind gay couples, they're a miniscule proportion of family structures, that will never be a significant part of general family life. Vast majority of the time there are single parents it is the father who is missing, because the mother is advantaged in every way when it comes to custody and nobody holds them to account for their actions while the dads are held accountable for theirs. Having a demographic where such a massive proportion of children lack a fathers influence, a male parent, is disastrous. One can always find exceptions but it isn't the exceptions that have the greater effect. Scores of young men in drugs and gangs, killing eachother and hurting eachother, perpetuating the ghettos they are born into. You don't get that shit when there are fathers around.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

ok, I have to ask. WHY is lacking a father disastrous? The implication is that fathers and mothers both fill a predetermined 'role' in the life of a child, and honestly... that's just not reality outside of couples who force themselves into it for the sake of fitting a presumed social norm.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Because they're FATHERS. Men and women aren't the same. Is your father the same as your mother.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Not at all. My mother is a very aggressive, assertive, pragmatic woman with a short temper and fixation on protecting her children above all others. My father is a more esoteric but still deeply loving and passionate man.

My father is not at all what you'd call 'traditionally masculine', nor my mother 'traditionally feminine'. But then that's a limitation of said traditions.

Both parents bring something to the table, as does my stepmother, but the truth of the matter is that none of it is what you'd see in assertions of 'traditional' gender roles. Moreover, when my father and mother first broke up, my father was NOT someone who had anything to offer as a parent. He made clumbsy attempts to fix this, but simply based on stories even he himself has told of early babysitting attempts... he wasn't ready for that and it would have been far worse if he was a true co-parent at the time.

That's something our society could stand to accept. That having parents divorce or no longer be a part of a childs life in the short term may in fact ensure a better and more fruitful long term relationship.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Gender roles are not societal impositions crafted from whole cloth to force people into boxes. They are descriptions of how people are on average. Men and women are not the same biologically or psychologically. They are not the same as parents. Pretending you can get by without males in the family, half the human race, is pathologically stupid. We need our dads.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The thing about the 'two parents are best' statistics is ultimately that they presume functionality. They rarely if ever normalize for the reasons people break up.

If you look at how things were forty years ago you quickly find that it's a pretty bleak picture. 'boomers' and others from more restrictive eras which stigmatized divorce or single parenthood more deeply see a large number of individuals who not only normalized but glorified their abuse and trauma. as a result these studies on single parenthood often have little to no comprehensive data on family units and abuse from decades prior while many of the equivalent family units are instead single parent, since the obligation to remain in a non-functioning relationship is not as strong.

Plus, and this is something I think most of these studies miss, sometimes the two parents need to be apart to be better parents. If my father had been 'stuck' with my mother I'm pretty positive he'd have just continued being the same partying, drinking, pot smoking kid he was when I was born. Instead he grew. Grew quite a bit. When he was older he became a serious presence in my life to the point where I lived with him and my stepmother in high school and at one point where my mom got quite sick during her nursing job, and he has been an amazing father to my two younger half brothers as well.

That is the big problem with these studies, they don't go very deep. They try to take a large number of factors and boil it down and seek out numbers which insist that their desired conclusion is correct, but with statistics like this normalization and attention to detail are key if you don't want junk data.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Some. The vast majority of families benefit from two parents in a relationship. The fact that some families that aren't also do well is not any indication or argument in favour of having single parent families.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I have to ask what you are basing this presupposition on that families 'do better' with two parents. Because honestly that's a very big claim. I would again assert that any family which sees one partner leaving likely had problems which would have heavily impacted the child, so one would need to demonstrate that said problems are somehow lesser than whatever is 'missing' from a child's life having no access or less than equal access to both parents. Because we should remember that 'single parenthood' is often blanketed in with situations where one parent has primary custody but the other parent has visitation or otherwise access if it is safe and if it is so desired.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

You are promoting broken homes. The best case scenario has always been a married couple raising their children together. The fact that some families don't have that isn't a reason to fucking promote changing the family structures for everybody. I come from a broken home, I know what effect its had on me and I know the effect it has on others. What happens to our families is what happens to us, we are shaped by it. I will not, ever, in good conscience, promote something suboptimal just because I didn't get to have the best life I could have. It is utterly reprehensible. So fucking what if some families do okay when they aren't traditionally structured, it makes no bloody difference when we're talking about the whole of society and everyone in it.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The presumption is that 'two parents is best'. I'm saying that is not always the case.

As you said, making excuses for behaviors isn't an optimal way to fix said behaviors. I would say that applies more than most things to familial life, even if we should consider the specifics of said life all the same.

I obviously can't speak to what you are going though personally. But I can say that the best thing for individuals within society is going to be different for everyone. There is no singular 'optimal' solution to the family unit. We should encourage a parent or parents to make the choices that will have the best outcome for the child, and not be afraid that those may be hard choices or choices we as a society don't like to see. Because ultimately we can't micromanage everyone's lives into a one size fits all shoebox.

In an ideal world everyone would have the parental/familial support they need in earnest. But naturally we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes it's best to stick it out, fight it out and see a relationship though to the other side. Other times? Other times it's best to break off the point of infection and try to mend the damage after. And that is a decision only the people involved at the moment can reasonably make.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Two parents, mother and father, IS best. Does that mean always and for everyone? No, because individual parents can be shitty people, abusive. But that doesn't describe how the majority are. The greater proportion of broken homes in any community coincides with all the other detrimental social ills one could care to name. There is a world of difference between knowing that some unconventional families do okay and thinking that the conventional family structure is wrong. You can get by and have a good life while missing a leg but that doesn't mean we should promote leg amputation as a bloody social norm.

"Why are you presuming two legs is the best?"

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

You claim two parents are best, but you still have to prove that. we can't simply presume two parents are best and leave it at that. or that the number of bad parents is somehow small, especially when divorce rates are so high. If a parent is a good parent, then they will be a good parent even if/when divorced.

What I oppose is not a child having two, or even more parents in their life as is needed. Stepparents are parents and can be amazing influences. Sometimes parental care comes more from siblings, grandparents or others than from the actual bio parents. What you are asking is that we presuppose one specific model is the 'best' model and it really isn't. Because humans and human lives consist of too many variables for that to be a case.

When it works, and it often does, then that's fine. I'm not saying we should damn any two parent mother/father household for not breaking up. that'd be absurd. What I'm saying is that accepting a bandwidth of functional families rather than insisting on one singular model is progress, and we should not lose that progress simply because James Dobson and his ilk the world over want to hammer the world into a shape more pleasing to their sensibilities.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I don't need to prove it, you need to prove it isn't. It is the natural pairing for the parents of a child to raise that child. Ideally you'd also want extended family around too, that's how humans lived for the most part, with average family sizes being over 10 people. A joining of two families in the mother and father. The idea you are contesting that the most stable environments for children doesn't involve having both parents stick around is absolutely bloody ridiculous and you haven't got a chance in hell of proving otherwise.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Sorry, but you don't prove a negative. I'm saying that familial structures are best left to individual familial units to decide and that no one unit is 'best' or better.

Your assertion is that one, singular, specific model is always or near always superior. Meaning you have to give cause as to why. Yes, I can agree that the raw increase in time and resources can be an advantage, but that's assuming it happens at all. Something absolutely not assured. In fact the same is true of extended family. I will absolutely back that extended family CAN be a huge advantage to a child. But it can just as easily be a hindrance. The love and support of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins can provide a solid safety net, or a network of abusers ready to prey on any deviation from the familial norm for their own catharsis.

That's why I posit that the current shifts are far healthier. Because we no longer have people remaining with or around toxic and debilitating individuals out of a sense of obligation. People are free to decide for themselves which models and family units work best. Because there is no one concrete thing a specific 'role' brings to any one unit. Each permutation is unique and consists of far too many variables for any sort of social regulation BS to properly cover.

In a vacuum, more people capable of providing support structures would absolutely be an advantage. But we aren't dealing with a vacuum. Sociology/Anthropology is messy. Hence why the specific details are best left to those who are able to most closely observe and evaluate the situation. The best we can do as a society is combat anti-intellectualism as an ingrained virtue so that people will seek knowledge and thus have more knowledge on hand when making such decisions.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

You're insisting that having to stay around toxic individuals in a traditional family structure is actually a point worth a fuck, when it isn't. That's not how most families are. You're conflating minority situations, when they go wrong, with the status quo of family life. You're ignoring the impact of such rampant fatherlessness in the black community only to focus on ephemeral shit like systemic racism, which apparently has gotten worse in the past 50+ years, which is patently insane. Can't get past that, you're explaining nothing and pushing for a worldview that doesn't produce desirable results. There's nothing else I can say to you. You're describing a society without people in it, but machines.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

The problem is that you can't say it is, or isn't, how most families are. Neither can I. Again there is too much minutia and too many variables for either of us to ever claim what would be better or worse for 'most' families.

What I am saying is that we need to remove the stigma of moving on from relationships when they are toxic, and accept that when someone chooses to be a single parent, or chooses to remove a part of the extended family from their lives, that it is likely the decision which will have the best outcome for them. And more to the point it is the decision which they have the right to make

I am by no means advocating that happy and functional family units just shatter 'because'. That would be absurd. What is equally absurd, however, is to insist that people continue trying to make something work when it clearly does not for the sake of some impinged 'benefit' to the children involved.

The 'fatherlessness' does not harm black families any more than any other families, and more often than not it's the stigma surrounding such a situation more than anything else which is causing the harm. the idea of something being wrong due to the absence of one parental unit causing some minor to moderate anxiety, which I'd argue pales in comparison to the broken systems which cause most black youths to justifiably fear authority figures, the substandard school systems, the extreme poverty which can make food, shelter and clothing a huge question mark even when both parents are present and working.

You say what I am describing would be machines. Well, I honestly don't mind that. We are machines. We are biologically based mechanical objects with the 'self' being data and processing pathways in a bioelectric quantum computer (I.E. our brain). We live in a society which is a series of rules, structures and systems intended to help provide needed benefits and support for easier overall function to as many individuals as possible. At least in theory.

And the thing is, there's nothing wrong with machines. Machines can be repaired. Machines can be improved. Machines can be understood. This is why I am a technocrat. Because understanding the mechanics of our world and the people in it is the best way to offer them solutions to lifes problems.

Though I would ask, isn't insisting that society be a one size fits all matter be just as much of a mechanized view of our world? The idea that the problem stems from some 'error' in behavior rather than predictable responses to external systemic issues which one must adapt to?

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

There isn't any fucking minutia. Get this into your head. That families with both mum and dad can and do go wrong is not an argument that overall that family structure isn't the best. It is pointing out that shit happens. Know what is even more likely to go to shit than a two-parent mother-father family? Single parent families. But you don't count that, you only use things going wrong as a point against traditional family structures. Because you're so ideologically possessed you think millions of years of biological and psychological human evolution is a social fucking construct. You actually asked me to demonstrate why fathers matter. Half the human races involvement in the raising of its children. This utter nonsense would be crazy even if you were on mushrooms as you typed it.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Hence why I wished to table the discussion in the first place. Because I don't think it is a place where we will agree, and if it is at the core of your views on this, we are at an impass.

I do not feel that 'because it's how things used to be' is an acceptable reason to view something as correct. Nor was that the only structure at that time. with many variations popping up ranging from the wealthy with pure nanny-equivilants or the children of concubines raised by one or two wives, to far more communal tribal upbringings, to the units people see as 'traditional.

But frankly, I don't see any of the purported superiority of one specific method. Nor do I see any link between single parenthood and the professed crime rates or the like.

If you have some links I'd be happy to look them over. But taken on a surface level I just don't see that we will agree.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

It isn't how things used to be, it's how human beings are. This isn't some unqualified insistence on the perpetuation of a dead yet idealised past, it's a human psychological need. Reality isn't the plaything of aspiring social engineers, there are consequences to fucking with people's needs and only the most deluded people are irresponsible enough to advocate throwing basic biological and psychological reality in the bin like it's a mistaken post-grad dissertation. Children need to see a man's love, feel it, see what it means to be a man and have ones place in society. The masculine and feminine are as essential as each other. To think that a community in which the norm is for no father to be around is fucked up for a whole host of systemic institutional reasons rather than developmental ones is patently garbage. Yes, we are certainly at an impasse, because there's no way I'm going to deny evolutionary biology and psychology, or statistical, empirical data. I only hope that in time people can break out of the prison of blaming institutions for social ills, bequeathing their own agency and power over their own futures to an ideology that gives them nothing in return except the meagre, squalid, currency of being a victim with an axe to grind.

TerraMGP

5 years, 9 months ago

link

And likewise, there is no way I could in good conciseness validate 'evolutionary psychology'. And again if you have links to empirical studies i'll be happy to read it, but if they are from organizations such as focus on the family then I have to warn you now such studies are already shaky in the larger scientific community.

We simply have very different ways of seeing the world. But I do hope one day we move past the point where this stigma and this idea that our social constructs are 'inherent' finally goes by the wayside and we are able as a species to engineer conditions that help give people the freedom to seek the best outcome rather than insisting on a singular mold.

RoareyRaccoon

5 years, 9 months ago

link